[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 28, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40831-40833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-19299]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-570-856]


Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Synthetic Indigo 
From the People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 28, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dinah McDougall or David J. 
Goldberger, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3773 or (202) 482-4136, 
respectively.

Initiation of Investigation

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act

[[Page 40832]]

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the 
Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR 
part 351 (1998).

The Petition

    On June 30, 1999, the Department received a petition filed in 
proper form by Buffalo Color Corporation (``BCC'') and the United Steel 
Workers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, which represents BCC's production 
workers, collectively referred to hereinafter as ``the petitioners.'' 
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the petitioners allege 
that imports of indigo from the People's Republic of China (PRC) are 
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair 
value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such 
imports are materially injuring or threatening to injure an industry in 
the United States. The petitioners filed supplemental information to 
the petition on July 9, 1999 and July 13, 1999.
    The Department finds that the petitioners filed this petition on 
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they represent, at a 
minimum, the required proportion of the United States industry (see 
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition section below).

Scope of Investigation

    The products subject to this investigation are the deep blue 
synthetic vat dye known as synthetic indigo and those of its 
derivatives designated commercially as ``Vat Blue 1.'' Included are Vat 
Blue 1 (synthetic indigo), Color Index No. 73000, and its derivatives, 
pre-reduced indigo or indigo white ( Color Index No. 73001) and 
solubilized indigo (Color Index No. 73002). The subject merchandise may 
be sold in any form (e.g., powder, granular, paste, liquid, or 
solution) and in any strength. Synthetic indigo and its derivatives 
subject to this investigation are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 3204.15.10.00, 3204.15.40.00 or 3204.15.80.00 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the merchandise under investigation is 
dispositive.
    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations 
(Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule (62 FR 27296, 
27323) (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all 
parties to submit such comments within 20 days of publication of this 
notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central 
Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The period for scope 
consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample 
opportunity to consider all comments and consult with parties prior to 
the issuance of our preliminary determination.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (1) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the petition.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the 
petition has the requisite industry support, the Act directs the 
Department to look to producers and workers who account for production 
of the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), 
which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' 
has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different 
purposes and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, 
the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and 
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the 
domestic like product, such differences do not render the decision of 
either agency contrary to the law.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 
639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); High Information Content Flat Panel Displays 
and Display Glass Therefore from Japan: Final Determination; 
Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 
32376, 32380-81 (July 16, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product that is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation,'' i.e., the merchandise to be investigated, which 
normally will be the scope as defined in the petition. Moreover, the 
petitioners do not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct 
from the scope of investigation.
    To the best of the Department's knowledge, the petitioner is the 
sole U.S. producer of the domestic like product. See memorandum to file 
dated July 13, 1999, ``Industry Support and Petitioner Buffalo Color 
Corporation's Sole Producer Claim''. Additionally, no person who would 
qualify as an interested party pursuant to sections 771(9)(C), (D), (E) 
or (F) of the Act has expressed opposition to the petitioner on the 
record. Thus, the petitioner accounts for more than 50 percent of the 
production of the domestic like product. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 732(c)(4) of the Act, we determine that the petition has been 
filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 
732(b)(1) of the Act. See Initiation Checklist dated July 20, 1999 
(public version on file in the Central Records Unit of the Department 
of Commerce, Room B-099) (Initiation Checklist).

Export Price and Normal Value

    The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less 
than fair value upon which our decision to initiate this investigation 
is based. Should the need arise to use any of this information in our 
preliminary or final determination for purposes of facts available 
under section 776 of the Act, we may re-examine the information and 
revise the margin calculations, if appropriate.
    The petitioners identified eleven potential PRC exporters and 
exporter/producers of indigo. The petitioners based export price on 
offers for sale of the subject merchandise to U.S. purchasers by one of 
the PRC exporters in November 1998 and May 1999. From these starting 
prices, the petitioners deducted international freight, marine 
insurance, and foreign brokerage and handling charges. The petitioners 
based international freight on an actual ocean freight invoice from a 
market economy shipping company for a shipment of indigo from the PRC. 
Marine insurance fees were based on a quote from a market economy 
supplier. The foreign brokerage and handling charges, which were based 
on the Department's ``Index of Factor Values for Use in Antidumping 
Duty Investigations

[[Page 40833]]

Involving Products From the PRC'' (``Index of Factor Values''), were 
adjusted for inflation using the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) published 
in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial 
Statistics.
    Because the PRC is considered a non-market economy (NME) country 
under section 771(18) of the Act, the petitioners based normal value 
(NV) on the factors of production valued in a surrogate country, in 
accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the Act. For purposes of the 
petition, the petitioners selected India as the most appropriate 
surrogate market economy. The petitioners calculated NV using publicly 
available Indian prices to value all unit costs associated with the 
factors of production. The petitioners established estimates for per-
unit consumption based on BCC's production experience adjusted for 
differences in the PRC production process according to information 
reasonably available to the petitioners.
    Materials were valued based on Indian prices obtained from publicly 
available information and published price lists, principally chemical 
prices in the Indian publications Chemical Weekly and Monthly 
Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, and adjusted using the WPI 
published in the International Financial Statistics, where appropriate. 
Labor was valued using the regression-based wage rate for the PRC 
provided by the Department, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). 
The values for water and electricity were obtained from international 
publications containing the prices applicable to India, and adjusted 
using the WPI published in the International Financial Statistics. The 
fuel oil and natural gas values were based on the Department's Index of 
Factor Values, and adjusted using the WPI published in the 
International Financial Statistics. To determine factory overhead, 
selling, general and administrative expenses, and profit, the 
petitioners relied on data from an Indian producer of hydrogen 
peroxide, which experiences similarly high fixed costs relative to 
direct manufacturing costs, as those incurred by producers of synthetic 
indigo. The valuation of packing factors was based on the Department's 
Index of Factor Values and international publications containing the 
prices applicable to India, and adjusted using the WPI published in the 
International Financial Statistics, where appropriate.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of indigo from the PRC are being, or are likely to 
be, sold at less than fair value. Based on a comparison of EP to NV, 
the petitioners' calculated dumping margins ranging from 124.69 percent 
to 129.60 percent.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petition alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, and is threatened with 
further material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject 
merchandise sold at less than NV. The allegations of injury and 
causation are supported by relevant evidence including U.S. Customs 
import statistics, lost sales, trade and financial data, and pricing 
information. The Department assessed the allegations and supporting 
evidence regarding material injury and causation and determined that 
these allegations are supported by accurate and adequate evidence and 
meet the statutory requirements for initiation.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation

    Based on our examination of the petition, we have found that the 
petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, 
we are initiating an antidumping duty investigation to determine 
whether imports of indigo from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless this deadline 
is extended, we will make our preliminary determination by December 7, 
1999.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of the petition has been provided to the representatives 
of the government of the PRC.

International Trade Commission Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will determine by August 16, 1999, whether there is a 
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of 
imports of indigo from the PRC. A negative ITC determination will 
result in the investigation being terminated; otherwise, this 
investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time 
limits.
    This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i) of the 
Act.

    Dated: July 20, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-19299 Filed 7-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P